May 18, 2011

Press Conferences

Dear Conferees:

When Adrian Fenty became mayor, he discontinued the weekly press
conferences that Mayor Anthony Williams had established. Williams didn't
much enjoy being subjected to press questioning, especially after the
first several months of his honeymoon with the press tapered off into a
quarrelsome relationship, but he stuck with the press conferences as an
important way to get information to the public. Mayor Adrian Fenty saw
how having to answer difficult questions from the press got Williams
into trouble, so he discontinued having press conferences. Instead, he
held photo availabilities several times a week. He allowed himself to be
photographed at ribbon-cutting and ground-breaking events, but wouldn't
allow any press questions that weren't directly about the event. That
let Fenty give the appearance of accessibility without giving reporters
the opportunity to ask him anything troubling.

Mayor Vincent Gray, to his credit, reinstituted the practice of
holding weekly press conferences, but he isn't happy with the result.
Reporters actually ask him difficult questions, and he doesn't like it.
Last week, he told reporters that he wanted a "good news"
press conference, and he didn't want any questions that would distract
from or cast any doubt on the good news that he was announcing. His
press handlers have tried to enforce a rule that each reporter will be
limited to one question and one follow-up, in order to prevent the mayor
from being subjected to any in-depth questioning or from having a
misleading answer challenged. This week, on Wednesday, Gray had at least
two uncomfortable moments that had his press handlers trying to silence
reporters. When WTOP's Mark Plotkin asked the mayor who had authorized
the sizable payments made to Gerri Mason Hall ($30,000) and Howard
Brooks ($45,000) for unspecified consultant services to his election
campaign, and when the mayor learned that those payments were made, Gray
began to answer (implying that he first learned of them from newspaper
accounts), but then retreated to saying that he wasn't going to go into
that subject again, because he had answered all of those questions
before  which he hasn't. Second, when Dorothy asked about the
scathing, damning DC Auditor's report on Allen Lew's management of the
Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization, Gray and Lew tried
to dismiss the questions. Lew scorned the report, implying that the
auditor had been unable to find the supporting documents because she had
been incompetent, and Grayimplied that the audit was unimportant
because Lew got the job done, and people liked the renovated schools.
Gray had campaigned against Fenty's management style. He said it wasn't
inclusive, wasn't open, didn't take account of the peoples' interests.
But on Wednesday, as he had done before when he endorsed Michelle Rhee's
campaign against teachers in the name of school reform, Gray repudiated
everything he had campaigned on. He endorsed and embraced the mistakes
of Fenty's administration, and claimed them as his own. He said
following procedures and regulations  the safeguards the city
government established to prevent corruption and waste  was
unnecessary, since all people cared about was the final result.

So how could the mayor hold a good press conference, when the press
is already skeptical of him? He could stop trying to "manage"
reporters, and instead try to answer their questions honestly. He should
embrace the "openness and transparency" that every mayor has
claimed to embrace, and that his campaign promised.

For further press reports about the DC Auditor's investigation of
Allen Lew's management of the Office of Public Education Facilities
Modernization, see Michael Neibauer in the Washington Business
Journal, http://tinyurl.com/65yp69z;
and Freeman Klopott in the Washington Examiner, http://tinyurl.com/67n2hlq.
For another account of yesterday's press conference, and of what she
calls Gray's "Fenty-esque Defense of OPEFM," see Lydia
DePillis in the Washington City Paper,http://tinyurl.com/646wqsx

Last week, on May 11, the DC Auditor released the "Auditor's
Review of the Operations and Administration of the Office of Public
Education Facilities Modernization" (Letter Report DCA 162011, http://www.dcauditor.org/DCA/Reports/OPEFM%20Report%205_11_11.pdf).
The in-depth forty-six-page audit by Deborah Nichols covers a two-year
period, fiscal years 2008 through 2009, and is highly critical of Mayor
Gray's City Administrator Allen Lew and his management of OPEFM, and
details multiple instances in which he failed to comply with District
law. The auditor reaches the conclusion that "OPEFM established a
procurement contract record management system that did not facilitate a
review of school- and project-specific expenditures for school facility
capital improvements, maintenance, repairs, and operating costs. OPEFM's
contract and procurement files did not consistently contain sufficient
information to constitute a complete history of contract and procurement
transactions. OPEFM did not create or maintain meeting minutes, written
summaries of key decisions, lists of project next steps, or reports on
the impact that changes in project scopes had on sufficient
modernization projects. Finally, OPEFM issued payments to a vendor
without a valid contract and assigned managerial functions to a
contractor."

The audit finds that: 1) "OPEFM deliberately set up their record
keeping to obstruct transparency of and accountability for its use of
capital funds to DCPS facility construction and modernization
projects"; 2) "vendor payment records were inaccurate and
incomplete"; 3) there was a "$31 million discrepancy between
payments OPEFM reported to the Council and PM (project manager)
files"; 4) the Auditor couldn't "rely on PM (project manager)
files to determine accurate school- and project-specific modernization
and stabilization expenditures"; 5) there was a conflict of
interest and the appearance of impropriety when Thomas D. Bridenbaugh, a
partner at the law firm of Leftwich and Ludaway, served as OPEFM's
Procurement Manager/Consultant, even though he was the son-in-law of a
Turner Construction Company Project Executive assigned to OPEFM projects
(and, in FY2008 and FY2009, there were $15 million in change orders
approved by OPEFM for Turner); 6) "OPEFM's contract and procurement
files did not contain documentation to support $15.3 million in
payments; 7) OPEFM's files for RBK Landscaping and Construction
(owned by Adrian Fenty's friend and mentor Keith Lomax) did not contain
"6 purchase orders and supporting documentation for payments
totaling $9,756,525"; 8) OPEFM vendor payments for Turner
Construction "did not include 6 purchase orders and supporting
documentation for $5,553,608 in payments to Turner"; 9) "OPEFM
made payments totaling $411,425 without a valid written contract"
to McKissack and McKissack and OPEFM could not determine "whether
the services were delivered"; 10) "OPEFM paid $12.7 million
for project management services but did not require written
documentation of issues and recommendations"; 11) "OPEFM
modernization projects failed to consistently comply with requirements
of Design Guidelines" that list "specifications, finishes and
furnishings for the modernization and stabilization of DCPS
facilities"; 12) OPEFM improperly contracted with Warren Graves to
be paid as an "on-site consultant" and Chief of Staff to OPEFM
Director Allen Lew; and 13) "Given the projected $3.5 billion that
OPEFM plans to spend on school modernization and stabilization projects
over the next 15 years, it is imperative that OPEFM substantially
improve its record keeping practices and maintain files that are
accurate, complete, and organized in a manner that is consistent with
best practices and applicable regulations. Without an accurate,
complete, record of each transaction, it is impossible to establish a
reliable, verifiable record of accountability and transparency, or a
sufficient audit trail."

This audit report should interest every DC resident. It offers
insight into the management shortcomings of Allen Lew, whom Mayor Gray
has promoted to be his City Administrator. Also, the Budget Support Act
for FY2012 that is currently before the city council creates a General
Services Department (GSD) within the District government to oversee the
redevelopment of District-owned properties and most capital projects,
including the operations of OPEFM. Lew has convinced the mayor that GSA
should an office overseen by him within the Office of the City
Administrator. Finally, at the mayor's weekly press conference on
Wednesday, I asked the mayor a very simple question  have you read
the auditor's report on OPEFM? He responded that he had not, but then
proceeded to defend Lew, arguing that, after all, "things turned
out all right" and "our schools look better today then they
have ever looked in the District of Columbia." Thus, despite poor
management at OPEFM and its violations of District law, Mayor Gray
argues that "the product" (i.e., renovated or rebuilt
schools) justified the means, and praised the work of the OPEFM under
Lew.

In the May 15 issue of themail, I complained that the people who hand
out parking tickets  I hesitate to call what they do "enforcing
parking laws"  are inordinately fond of P055, "no parking
anytime," as the universal, one-size-fits-all parking violation.
Trouble is, according to the official MPD document defining these
three-digit codes, this citation corresponds to DC Municipal Regulation
18, 4019.1, which is applicable in only three very specific locations in
the District. Virtually every car receiving a P055 ticket is not in fact
in violation of that regulation.

The MPD has responded by inserting a caveat on the web page linking
to that document, saying, essentially, this document cannot be trusted.
Evidently the DMV has also figured out that the official interpretation
of P055 is nonsensical, and is trying to weasel its way out of this
problem. My Mount Pleasant neighbor, denying by mail a DDOT-issued P055
ticket, received this creative response, rejecting his denial, from the
DMV: "It is a violation of District of Columbia regulations to park
any vehicle, except an authorized emergency vehicle, in a no parking
anytime zone (18 DCMR 2400.6; 2406.7)." Evidently somebody decided
that, if 4019.1 didn't fit, maybe one of those two DCMR paragraphs
would.

In fact, 2400.6 isn't a prohibition, and 2406.7 is, in this case,
irrelevant. The latter can be dismissed quickly, because it applies only
to narrow streets, fewer than thirty feet wide, and the street at issue
here is not narrow. The first, read carefully, is not parking
regulation. It says that ". . . the provisions of this chapter
prohibiting the standing or parking of a vehicle shall apply at all
times, or at those times herein specified, or as indicated on official
signs, . . ." In short, it's about the times at which the various
regulations of Chapter 24 of DCMR Volume 18 are applicable. Nobody's
arguing about the times, and that regulation certainly does not define a
"no parking anytime zone." Clearly, the DMV is desperately
trying to figure out some parking ban that might plausibly relate to
P055, "no parking anytime," given that the official paragraph,
4019.1, is quite irrelevant.

Gee, maybe the parking enforcement folks could specify codes that
actually correspond to the actual violation, instead of this magical,
universal, unthinking "P055." In this particular case, the
correct parking code is P025, "Parking less than 40 ft. of
intersection," corresponding to DCMR 18, 2405.2(c). Why is that so
hard? With that correct citation in hand, the recipient of the ticket,
and the DMV, will know exactly what the charged violation is, and the
two parties can have an intelligent discussion of the matter. But it
seems to be impossible to get DC ticket writers, whether DDOT, MPD, or
DPW, to give up their addiction to the simple, universal,
no-thinking-required P055. So the recipient of the ticket cannot know
exactly what parking law he's being accused of violating, and the DMV
cannot determine, from the notations on the parking ticket, what the
supposed violation of law is. They're all just guessing, but you're
supposed to shut up and pay the fine anyway. For whatever it is you did.

I was confused by Gary's post about the DCFPI poll [themail, May 11].
Yes, DC is overwhelmingly Democratic. The question is, would DC voters
prefer a more progressive tax code? I took a look at the poll myself and
saw no references to Gary's assertion that "social services
programs are assumed to be uniformly both effective and
cost-effective." In fact, I went to a budget workshop facilitated
by an employee of what we're now hearing is a nonexistent DC Fiscal
Policy Institute, and the facilitator railed at some length against the
job training programs that DC insists that TANF recipients take, not
because she felt they shouldn't take job training, but because they were
so ineffective and frustrating to the participants who in most cases are
desperate to improve their skills, get a real job and get off the dole.

As a low-income, working, single-mom myself, some may assert that it
is simply self-serving and selfish of me to desire the more progressive
tax code that the DC Fiscal Policy has been promoting. So be it. I
appreciate hearing from those who make more than $250,000 per year and
aren't happy about having their tax rate go up .4 percent (which I think
is what we're talking about). I hope that they are in turn willing to
listen to those of us on the other end of the tax hike/budget cuts
debate. To that end, I submit the following video, which features a lot
of people who are impacted by the budget cuts to social services and
would benefit greatly from a tax increase on the wealthy. Here's the
link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q73EQmwNrpE

###############

CLASSIFIEDS  EVENTS

Susie Cambria and Diana Winthrop are offering four workshops for
nonprofits, faith-based organizations, and more. Topics are having
effective relationships with the legislative and executive branches,
having an effective relationship with local media, and outreach that
actually reaches out. The workshops are affordable and registration and
other information is online: http://helpingothersbetter.blogspot.com/2011/05/helping-others-better-workshops-are.html.

May 26, 12:30-1:30 p.m., Building in the 21st Century: Walking the
Talk: Why Seek LEED Certification for the Center for a Livable Future?
No charge. Registration required. Walk-in registration based on
availability. Dr. Robert Lawrence, director of the Center for a Livable
Future at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, discusses the
renovation of the center and how its LEED certification reflects the
institution's commitment to the highest standards of current green
technology, food production, environment, and human health. At the
National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square Metro
station. Register for events at http://www.nbm.org.

###############

themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every
Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription
to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the
E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the
E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.

All postings should be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should
be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in
one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to be printed,
and messages should be reasonably short  one or two brief paragraphs
would be ideal  so that as many messages as possible can be put into
each mailing.